Delhi HC Rejects PIL Seeking Direction To UOI To Frame Guidelines For Putting A Cap On Airfares

The Court held thus while noting that affordability of airfares is ensured by Aircraft Rules,1937 as per which DGCA is empowered to issue directions to airlines if it is satisfied that airlines have charged excessive or predatory airfares and in case of any violation by the airline DGCA can take action.

The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “Rule 135(4) empowers DGCA to issue directions to the airlines if it is satisfied that airlines have charged excessive or predatory airfares. The directions issued by DGCA have to be complied with by the airline concerned as per Rule 135(5). There is thus, in place an existing legal regime to ensure that air fares are affordable and in case of any violation by the airline, the DGCA can take action against the said airline.”

The present Writ Petitions were filed seeking a direction to the Respondent Union of India to frame guidelines for putting a cap on airfares to prevent the private airlines from charging arbitrary, irrational and exorbitant airfares for the flights.

The Court noted that the airfare pricing by the private airlines is not unchecked and is being regulated by DGCA by the Aircraft Rules, 1937.

The Court said that the Petitioners while raising a grievance concerning isolated incidents of spiked airfares have not substantiated the same with any corroborative documents.

The Court further said that the petitioners have relied upon the incidents reported in the newspaper articles, however, according to the Court in the absence of any documents evidencing the claim of over-charging, which could prove a violation of the applicable Aircraft Rules, 1937, there is no reason to conclude that Respondent-DGCA has failed to check the violation of the statutory rules by the airlines.

“The aviation sector being a capital-intensive sector, the regulated free play given to the airlines to implement dynamic pricing of the fares for each flight appears to conform with the norms followed worldwide and appears to be essential growth of the said sector.”, the Court observed.

The Court further stated that the interest of the passengers is to be safeguarded by DGCA, which is empowered under Rule 135 to check against sudden price surges if it is contrary to the declared highest tariff of the airline in the concerned sector.

According to the division bench, in an appropriate matter, upon proof of payment of the high tariff charge the aggrieved passenger would have a right to approach the appropriate forum for action against the erring airline(s).

While observing that the Petitioners have not made out any grounds for the Court to interfere in policy change it noted, “The legislature has made a conscious shift from a regulated regime to deregulation in the year 1994, when it repealed the Air Corporation Act, 1953”.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the PIL.

Cause Title: Amit Sahni v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4063-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Amit Sahni, Adv. Ankur, Adv. Parth Sharma, Adv. Vaibhav Mishra, Adv. Kanupriya Mehta, Adv. Sonali Tiwari Adv. Shashank Deo Sudhi and Adv. Aru Prakash